Treating Other People With Respect

[Corsair 115]

Okay, so you're not asking if the speaker's intent matters.

No. I'm saying one cannot be 100% certain of intent without the speaker expressly stating their motivation.

And, yes, the speaker's intent is often conveyed. Not always, but often.

Have you never heard sarcasm or a backhanded compliment? Are you saying that these things cannot be identified unless the speaker explicitly states it as such?

That's still inference. You're inferring intent based on certain observations. Such inference may indeed be correct. But misunderstandings and individual differences in usage of language can account for such observations. The only way to know the intent with certainty is to ask the speaker.

 

[rwguinn]

For Some of us, teapotcavalry, you're preaching to the choir.
Others will never get it. See my sig...

 

[Upchurch]

For Some of us, teapotcavalry, you're preaching to the choir.

In that it's a matter of faith?

 

[Meed]

But those all have their own words:

1. Choosing to use inoffensive wording. politeness
2. Trying to make sure a variety of groups are represented. inclusiveness
3. Banning a word or practice that they think might offend people. censorship
4. Verbally attacking, reprimanding or firing someone who said or did something deemed offensive. objecting

When a phrase is so all-encompassing that it means means so many different things to so many different people, it really doesn't mean anything. And it really doesn't mean what you listed above either. As a pejorative, it is labeling those you oppose doing the listed actions.

"Ticked off" means the same thing as "annoyed". That isn't an argument that "ticked off" is a meaningless phrase. Additionally, those words don't quite fit. For example, there is much more to being polite than simply using inoffensive word choices. I don't think anyone would refer to holding a door open for someone or saying "thank you" to a cashier as being politically correct behaviors, but most would consider them polite.

There tends to be an overlying theme that spans all four of the categories I mentioned, though. I didn't say that those are four different things that PC can mean, I said that they are four different types of behaviors that may (or not--depending on the details) be labeled as PC. It's behaviors that are on behalf of a group that is perceived to be disadvantaged and/or perceived to be a minority that tends to be the unifying theme. Whether out of genuine concern and respect, or simply a fear of causing offense or being seen as a bigot.

I do think the meaning is somewhat vague and may vary from person to person a bit. And also that most, if not all of the same things can be objected to without using that particular term. But I definitely wouldn't go so far as to call it meaningless.

"PC" and "SJW" are two terms I've stopped using, because I've noticed some people's reaction to hearing them is to think "Oh, you're one of those people" and then productive discussion goes out the window.

 

[Upchurch]

"Ticked off" means the same thing as "annoyed". That isn't an argument that "ticked off" is a meaningless phrase.

It is also something one might use to describe one's own emotions and not particularly pejorative.

I do think the meaning is somewhat vague and may vary from person to person a bit. And also that most, if not all of the same things can be objected to without using that particular term. But I definitely wouldn't go so far as to call it meaningless.

How about having too many meanings? Ultimately, it circles around to being the same thing, but I could see arguing that there is a distinction.


Someone farther up in the thread came closest to the mark when they defined "political correctness" as a pejorative used against liberals. In other words, it is not a term that could be universally applied, nor is it something anyone being so labeled would defend. It's the equivalent to calling someone a "right-wing nut-job" and claiming that "right-wing nut-job-ness" is something people embrace, defend, and ascribe to as doctrine.

But while there are many things that could be described as right-wing nut-job-ness, the term itself is meaningless. You can apply it to whatever you want in order to marginalize that aspect of something or someone you don't like, ultimately dismissing them without any real argument because "they are too right-wing nut-job-ness."

"PC" and "SJW" are two terms I've stopped using, because I've noticed some people's reaction to hearing them is to think "Oh, you're one of those people" and then productive discussion goes out the window.

The irony that seems to be lost here is that this effect is circular. People are complaining that people who are "PC" (or "SJW") shut down conversation, but dismissively labeling someone "PC" as a pejorative also shuts down conversation.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

The irony that seems to be lost here is that this effect is circular. People are complaining that people who are "PC" (or "SJW") shut down conversation, but dismissively labeling someone "PC" as a pejorative also shuts down conversation.

I certainly agree that "identifying" the arguer or labeling them is counterproductive to the conversation. But it's also worth pointing out that in both cases it's the one who is accused of being PC that is shutting down the conversation. Either they're too PC for any meaningful conversation to be had or they take offense in being told that they're too PC for any meaningful conversation to be had.

ETA: and out of curiosity, do you actually think "you're too politically correct to have a meaningful conversation" means "you're too polite to have a meaningful conversation"?

 

[Upchurch]

I certainly agree that "identifying" the arguer or labeling them is counterproductive to the conversation. But it's also worth pointing out that in both cases it's the one who is accused of being PC that is shutting down the conversation. Either they're too PC for any meaningful conversation to be had or they take offense in being told that they're too PC for any meaningful conversation to be had.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

I do because that is neither sufficient nor accurate.

I think they are accurate and sufficient enough, and me and others seem to use the term similarly to how they are defined there.

They are often applied where no excess or extreme measure is taken

My personal experience differs vastly.

and it is not applied in situations where conservatives are the ones avoiding offense.

I'm not interested in politics or political discussions, so I wouldn't know about that. Rest assured, "politically correct" is a term used outside of the realm of actual policing/administering/governing a country.

It is somehow limited to certain, and yet an undefined range, of topics, but not to others.

As far as I've seen, it is used to describe a specific behavior, regardless of any political affiliations of the describee (is that a word?).

Not really. None of the definitions provided match how it is being described or used in this thread.

1) Its use is the very thing what's under dispute in this thread, I would think this thread is not the best place to gather data how this word is generally used.
2) I and many other posters are using it in the way google and wiki has described it
ETA 3) This thread is the first place I've seen anyone argue that political correctness is actually just politeness and courtesy. From my experience, I'd say this is the overwhelming minority of speakers who choose to define it that way.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_49053960998eaa84.jpg[/qimg]

Was there a point in there somewhere?

 

[Upchurch]

Was there a point in there somewhere?

Yeah, this is some pretty epic lack of self-awareness. Here:

But it's also worth pointing out that in both cases it's the one who is accused of being PC that is shutting down the conversation. Either they're too PC for any meaningful conversation to be had or they take offense in being told that they're too PC for any meaningful conversation to be had.

How is that person shutting down the conversation when (the generic) you are the one who refuses to converse? You're justifying because you feel they are "too <fill in the blank>", but they aren't the one shutting down the conversation.

ETA: and out of curiosity, do you actually think "you're too politically correct to have a meaningful conversation" means "you're too polite to have a meaningful conversation"?

No, I think it means "you're too polite to groups I don't like to have a meaningful conversation."

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Yeah, this is some pretty epic lack of self-awareness. Here:

What you think you're objecting to has nothing to do with self-awareness as this is not me being unaware of my behavior. You probably meant a logical inconsistency or something akin to that.

Here's why you're wrong:

How is that person shutting down the conversation when (the generic) you are the one who refuses to converse? You're justifying because you feel they are "too <fill in the blank>", but they aren't the one shutting down the conversation.

The generic you is not the one refusing to converse, it's the one who is accused of being too PC that refuses to converse.

That was the point.

No, I think it means "you're too polite to groups I don't like to have a meaningful conversation."

There's your problem then. That's not what it means.

 

[Upchurch]

Here's why you're wrong:


The generic you is not the one refusing to converse, it's the one who is accused of being too PC that refuses to converse.

That was the point.

No, you just repeated yourself and missed the point. If someone is so "PC" that you can't talk to them in a meaningful way, you are blaming that person for something you are unable to do.

There's your problem then. That's not what it means.

Of course it does. If there is no underlying common ground on certain base assumptions, such as who does and who does not deserve to be treated equitably, then no meaningful conversation can be had. Once you've made up your mind that someone is "too PC", you've abandoned the attempt to find common ground and closed the door on meaningful conversation.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

No, you just repeated yourself and missed the point. If someone is so "PC" that you can't talk to them in a meaningful way, you are blaming that person for something you are unable to do.

Makes perfect sense to me. Another example would be to say that if someone is so dogmatic that they think the Earth is 5000 years old, you can't talk to them in a meaningful way. Sure, I'd blame that person for the fact that we can't have a meaningful discussion.

Once you've made up your mind that someone is "too PC", you've abandoned the attempt to find common ground and closed the door on meaningful conversation.

Again, see the above.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Makes perfect sense to me. Another example would be to say that if someone is so dogmatic that they think the Earth is 5000 years old, you can't talk to them in a meaningful way. Sure, I'd blame that person for the fact that we can't have a meaningful discussion.



Again, see the above.

So demanding that people be treated equitably is the new Creationism?

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

So demanding that people be treated equitably is the new Creationism?

The rule of so!

 

[mijopaalmc]

The rule of so!

The Rule of The-Rule-of-So.

 

[Upchurch]

So demanding that people be treated equitably is the new Creationism?

Apparently, labeling someone as "PC" is the new creationism. If decide someone is against the faith, arbitrarily labeled "too PC", you shouldn't argue with them least you be tempted by reason.

 

[Upchurch]

The rule of so!

Still not actually a thing.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Apparently, labeling someone as "PC" is the new creationism. If decide someone is against the faith, arbitrarily labeled "too PC", you shouldn't argue with them least you be tempted by reason.

Still not actually a thing.

Not sure what either of these mean, but would love to hear if you think you can have a meaningful discussion with a dogmatic creationist who thinks the Earth is 5000 years old.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Apparently, labeling someone as "PC" is the new creationism. If decide someone is against the faith, arbitrarily labeled "too PC", you shouldn't argue with them least you be tempted by reason.

It also seems The Rule of So serves a similar function.